MAXIMIZING BENEFITS, NOT DOLLARS
Use Stillwater Forest to Mold New Model for State Lands
By Bill Schneider, 6-05-08
 |
|
 | |
| Pricey real estate along Whitefish Lake. Photo by Bill Schneider. | |
|
Last week, I wrote about the dilemma facing the Montana Land Board and other state land boards--what to do with extremely valuable state land near rapidly growing municipalities. A small section of the Stillwater State Forest on the outskirts of Whitefish, Montana, is an excellent choice for establishing a new policy where managing for outdoor recreation, watershed, wildlife habitat and open space trumps timbering and/or subdivision.
The rub is, such non-commercial uses might be illegal even if everybody agrees this option would benefit the most people for the longest time.
It would be difficult to place a dollar value on this 330-acre slice of state forestland. It’s so valuable for the same reason any real estate gets valuable, location. It happens to be on the shores of Whitefish Lake, which might be the priciest real estate in Montana, if not the entire New West. It also extends up the slopes above the lake into the coveted viewshed for not only the bulk of the resort community but also for a line of $10 million lakeshore castles.
As noted in last week’s column, the Land Board has a constitutional mandate to maximize revenue from state lands to fund public schools. And there is no doubt selling the so-called Swift section of the Stillwater State Forest for trophy homes would raise many millions for schools and public education, which in Montana (as in most states) are eternally underfunded.
I suspect some members of the Land Board, Montana’s top five elected officials, as well as managers of the Stillwater State Forest would like to see the Swift section remain open for public outdoor recreation. But with the mandate to use state lands for funding schools, how can they legally do it?
Right now, the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC), the state agency charged with managing state lands and making recommendations to the Land Board, has no plans to offer the Swift section or any other section of the forest for sale to land developers. However, DNRC is working on the Beaver/Swift/Skyles timber sale, which probably will lead to traditional logging of the Swift section, including road building and cutting the majestic, 300-foot larches in the area.
Bob Sandman, who manages the Stillwater State Forest, told NewWest.Net his agency has already done a lot of public involvement on this controversial timber sale and plans another round “very soon.” After the upcoming public involvement phase, DNRC will develop alternatives and probably offer the timber for sale this fall with cutting planned for next spring.
Later, after logging, after the access roads are in, after land developers express interest in paying millions for the Swift section, will DNRC offer the area up for rural subdivision? Right now, according to Sandman, there are no plans for residential or commercial development, even though DNRC has a new Real Estate Management Plan and has suggested using the Stillwater State Forest as a pilot project for implementing the plan and some locals suspect the seemingly endless school-funding shortfall might make selling the land too tempting to resist.
The DNRC tends to manage the timber the same everywhere, whether in a remote area or on the shores of Whitefish Lake, points out Jim Cancroft, a private forester working for Northwest Management. “We want fire hazard reduction and to respond to forest health issues but not cutting on a large scale. We need an alternative where we can keep the big trees and not build permanent roads.”
“The problem is this viewshed and watershed is heavily used for recreation and is already part of this amenity-based economy,” adds Whitefish attorney Diane Conradi. “We need to come up with an alternative that doesn’t involve development or at least limits development.”
Conradi and Cancroft have been hired by Mike Goguen, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist from Sequoia Capital fame and now a wealthy landowner with holdings above Whitefish Lake and adjacent to the Stillwater State Forest, to look for an elusive alternative to revenue-maximizing timber or subdivision development. Goguen has also supported many other community projects in the Whitefish area, such as providing seed money for the A Trail Runs Through It project, a massive private-public partnership to develop a 15-mile non-motorized trail around Whitefish Lake and through the community of Whitefish. The proposed trail route passes through the Swift section of the Stillwater State Forest.
So, how do we satisfy the state’s mandate to raise money and not extensively log or subdivide the Swift section?
One answer Conardi likes is what she calls “selling development rights,” which in essence means paying to not develop. Such “non-development rights” could be sold to another state agency or a municipality such as the City of Whitefish or even a private landowner like Mike Goguen. She calls this option “a conservation-based revenue source.”
Or, Cancroft adds, “We can pay them (DNRC) not to cut.”
He has already worked with Goguen to apply for what’s called a Timber Conservation License, which allows an agency, nonprofit or private individual to bid against loggers when the timber sale goes out to bid. If they have the successful bid, they can choice to not remove the timber or at least opt for limited logging.
“We’re already trying to incorporate some of this new thinking into the plan,” Sandman told
If ever there were a place to test some new options, this scenic site on Whitefish Lake would be it. I doubt many pieces of state land are more heavily used for outdoor recreation or provide a more prized viewshed.
I hope the Land Board views the Swift section of the Stillwater State Forest as a pilot project, but not for implementing the real estate plan, but a pilot for a new policy for managing state land for maximum public enjoyment instead of maximum income.
Let’s make a conservation- and recreation-based alternative work here in the Stillwater State Forest so the Land Board has an option for other key state lands near municipalities. And not just in Montana, but all states that have had the foresight to not sell off their state lands.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
Why can't the USFS use the Land, Water Conservation Fund to buy it from the State in a buy-out and land trade deal that would leave the State with timberland to manage elsewhere, and the now devoted amenity managers of the USFS with a prime piece of real estate on which to work their magic? A win-win. Cash for the Land Board immediately, and land to produce more cash down the road. The vaunted USFS land management process will protect the land from any use other than appeal and lawsuit fodder. The State can work their timber management magic on land elsewhere, preferably ground that is a lot line adjustment against existing State lands. There is a whole lot of timberland the USFS has that is butted up against the Montana Deer Lodge prison lands that would have a fine work force available and nearby for forest health and fuel reduction work.
The USFS can always find a way to line the pockets of NGOs with piles of money when they bring a piece of ground to them. And the funds usually come from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The money is there, held in trust by the Treasury. It has already been earned and deposited. The State of Montana needs to tap that fund in concert with the Feds to put valuable amenity land in USFS hands to burn and not be held responsible. They do have the money to put up use constraining signs and signs addressing regulations and special permits, have cops patrolling, and trail rangers to hurry you along. A special chunk of ground needs special help in its preservation.
The Land Board made up of the top 5 elected officals in State government is suspect from the git-go. Oregon has deep green enviros for Land Board members. They lose money in the name of being green, a position they can take without much fear in urban green Oregon. Somehow, short changing schools, no PILT payments, no timber harvests to share in on that 60% of the State this is Federal lands, are just fine for urban voters who think that taxing the rich will make it all go away. And, they have history, very immediate history, to tell that is correct. Phil "Nike" Knight just sold more than a $Billion dollars worth of Nike stock, and the state gets 9% capital gains tax on it, which put the State out of fiscal danger in the now apparent recession. I would suppose the Feds did OK on that deal as well. We can buy jet fuel for another week. But those rural counties losing sheriff's offices, libraries, court time, road maintenance, classroom days in school will still suffer, and the State and Federal Treasuries will piss the money away in pork barrel deals for high seniority House and Senate hacks far away in another land, in reality.
Montana ought to tap their new Democrat majority to get the Congress to trade out high value amenity land to the USFS or BLM for land and money. That is how Timmy Blixeth made his money. And his purpose in life was not to fund schools and schoolchildren's education. He is a billionaire and a half. Is the Common School Fund a billionaire and a half?
And it's SKYLES, not Styles, Bill.
My feeling on the west lands is that putting in "easements" and whatnot
Would the "timber conservation license" be perpetual, or would it have to come up at the next rotation, or prevent salvage of those same 300 year old DEAD larches should a fire take them out? Big tall dead sticks like that would be a hiker's paradise, especially about 15 years out as rot takes the roots, and wind does its thing to make the area a jackstrawed tinder pit.
The fact is, a well-managed, parked-out stand of timber is just as much eye- or eco-candy as the mis-named "pristine, natural" forest. I hope Bob Sandman keeps his brain in gear and puts out a showpiece free of any eco-"correct" nuttiness.
And, Dave, don't hold your breath waiting for those burnt larch to fall. Some of the "buckskin" snags from the 1910 fire are still standing.
Why don't you give me an example of a multi-use plan that will generate as much timber value as they do now? Please, I'd love to hear your ideas...
As for your lower value per acre...timber left standing to rot has no value in terms of the school trust intent. The value, in terms of our state constitution, is only in its ability to generate revenues for the trust. Perhaps you would like to be the "ranger" on this tract, paid out of the revenues from the hordes of folks you'll need to guide, and charge admission to? Or perhaps you could sell some pictures on the Internet and rigorously enforce the photo copyrights? Yer an artiste anyway, you should be able to wangle a contract to do so, eh? Or are you finding it hard to sell the "intangible worth" of your product?
All this hooey about "existence value" and "ecosystem services" is worse voodoo than anything the Reaganites cooked up. I will certainly recognize that a g-bear is worth something...but not at a foregone opportunity cost of 2.1 million a year per bear, and for dang sure not in light of the fact that bears will utilize managed habitat, even poop on ROADS, dependent on time of day.
I also wish "old growth" had a definition that had any basis in length of life, of biological significance. What is the age of the old growth you talk about? What are the characteristics of this old growth? Is this 100 year old trees, or 300 or 500 or 700 year old trees? Or are we talking about diameter outside the bark chest high? Is that diameter 20", 36" or greater? What is the site characteristics of where the trees are found? Is it a low site area where trees are constantly stressed for water, have small diameters, and the stand removal fire frequency is 100 years or less? Or is it a higher site, with much better growing conditions, and stand removal fire is 200 years or more, and diameters are three times that of the low sites? Is there an understory of co-dominant species other than the overstory? Is there a mix of tree ages? Or is the stand pretty much the same age and species mix across the landscape? Tell us what you mean by old growth by giving specifics. I can describe a fart but I can't show you one. Many talk about old growth, but can't describe what one is. Or won't.
You can't make 2x4s out of 3" logs. Nor can you make 2x10 out of 6" logs. Log size has to matter for there to be useable lumber to made from them. Chips are the lowest value. There is a limit to how many wood fence posts the world needs. My point is that trees have to be big enough to mill into useable products. Their age is of little significance. High site can grow a good mix of trees in 60-70 years in western Montana. If not, there would be zero logging occurring at this time on industrial lands. The issue is that what is old growth in some eyes is nothing more than the regrowth from prior logging in another's eyes.
The Dept of State Lands has a mandate that was given at Statehood, and that was to sell, lease or manage School Sections for education, for the public, at their highest rate of financial return. The radical idea of a new nation that education was to be universal, that it would be paid for by using lands conveyed to the State at Statehood, was a noble and daring undertaking in this world, even today. To think that we have become so entitled, so disregarding of that idea, that concept, that education was to be available to all, regardless of income, citizenship, race, creed, religion, color, that we can now disregard and diminish the role of those State lands in the pursuit of the goal of a GOOD universal education for all is a shame on all who try to derail the use of those lands.
Yogi Berra said "You had better dance wit' da gal what brung ya." Using those State lands wisely, for the best long term return, no matter whose idea of timber management, range management prevails, the goal is still the same: dollars for education. That is the gal what brung ya. If your plan diminishes those dollars, you cannot claim to be for universal education for all. Put up your money in its stead if you don't want trees cut. Not someone else's. Yours. Match the dollars. And that has to happen every 50-100 years. And you should find employment for those who don't work in the mills and producing those logs. And selling huckleberry sno-cones for two months in summer is not meaningful job replacement.
Good management will lead to profits. Some timber sales don't make much money at all, but management is nessecary because the stand needed to be thinned or insect and disease probelms needed to be addressed or fuels reduced or etc. All of these treatments can lead to a heathier and more productive stand that will be benifical in the future to the trust. If you asked DNRC to account for individual sales, I bet some would come out as a draw, some would lose money and some would make money. All of these sale though would have a common object of promoting future conditions benifical for the trust...you have to look long range. Like any business, some days they make money and some days is losses money...but as long as the long range goal in benifical and shows net profit its a win. If you need further evidence of this, check every lawsuit that has been brought against DNRC for cost accounting. Not one case has ever won...
Also, there is many stands that have been treated in the mid to late 1950's and 1960's that are just now coming back into "old Growth" status as defined by Green et al. But I'm sure you think that as soon as a forest stand is touched by the hand of man it's no longer old growth right?
Bear Bait...Check Green et al. I think it's the best description for the Northern Rockies in Montana and Idaho.